Appeal No. 2004-1004
Application No. 10/011,074
Additionally, the examiner should analyze the scope of the
appealed claims through claim interpretation. In particular,
the examiner should ascertain the scope and meaning of the term
“substantially solid,” taking into account any enlightenment
found in the specification. In this regard, we observe that the
specification does not appear to contain any express definition
for the term “substantially solid” but that Figures 7 and 8, for
example, describe hollow bodies. Under these circumstances, the
examiner should reconsider applying Jones against the appealed
claims in rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
Summary
In summary, we reverse the examiner’s rejections under: (i)
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of appealed claims 1 and 8 as anticipated by
Welch; and (ii) 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) of appealed claim 2 as
anticipated by Elges. We affirm, however, the examiner’s
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) of appealed claims 1, 3
through 5, 8, and 9 as anticipated by Elges. Also, we remand
this application pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(a)(2003)(effective
Aug. 20, 1989).
Time Period for Taking Action
This application, by virtue of its “special” status,
requires an immediate action. See MPEP § 708.01(D)(8th ed.,
Rev. 1, Feb. 2003). Thus, it is important that the Board be
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007